Talk:Liberalism

At first read this page seems very US centric in its definition of liberal, in that it trys to merge the two "new"(?) and "classical" visions. Seen from outside, they just seem like the same name for two very different ideologies. Opposing "conservative" to "liberal" is unique to the US as well.

It could be useful to acknoledge that difference and divide the page in two rather than try to reconcile the the irreconcilable.

I do not agree, the updates I made were certainly not US centric, since I am an European liberal. But liberal has not only various meanings in the US, but also in Europe. In my country we have two liberal parties with different political positions. Also modern European liberals root their philopsophy in classical liberalism. Gangulf 21:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear enough, nevermind the US centricity, it seems illusory to try and reconcile the two definitions. They are two different ideologies, and it would be more honest to have two different pages, or at least on should seperate them clearly in the article. Thatcher and Reagan are perfect illustrations of this incompatibility. 20:19, 19 Aug 2004 (GMT).

A clearer separation is, indeed, a good idea.

See below Gangulf 20:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This version of the page liberalism is a merger of the pages Liberalism, Political liberalism and Classical liberalism.

The new text takes into account the position of political liberals and of classical liberals. The labeling of progressive liberal views as being social democratic views have been deleterd. Old versions of the pages can be found at

Gangulf 07:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As part of an extensive edit, I have copy edited the second of the two sections of the article entitled "classical liberalism" (under "economic liberalism"). I've refrained from doing more than a copy edit, because I'm not sure exactly what to do with it. As written (both before and after my edits), it feels to me a bit like a manifesto rather than an objective description (although it seems reasonably on the mark). Does someone else want to take a shot at this section? -- Jmabel 07:00, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify the passage that now begins "Generally in Europe..." However, I may have gotten it wrong. It referred to a "sense 1" now long gone from the article. Would someone familiar with European liberalism please have a look at this paragraph, see if they believe it to be accurate, and modify it if not? Thanks in advance. -- Jmabel 18:01, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I made some corrections in this paragraph from my knowledge of European liberalism, being a bureau member of the ELDR. Gangulf 20:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've reworked the section now entitled "Evolution of liberalism". It was a bit of a mess (I suspect it evolved from different people expressing somewhat conflicting views). I've tightened it up a bit and added a few specifics that were previously missing. Along the way I lost two potentially useful passages, one because I couldn't work out how to get it in, the other because I couldn't see how it was relevant, though someone may be able to tie it back in. Here they are:

"Gladstone, a political liberal, was influenced by his correspondance with Lord Acton, a classical liberal."

This is true, but without saying what those influences are, it's little more than trivia. If someone can expand it, it could be a useful addition to the article. Similarly, it would be good if someone could expand on in exactly what ways Mill was influenced by his wife.

(of classical liberal views of the politics of liberal parties in former communist states) "...but doesn't match either the diversity of their opinions (see anarcho-capitalism) or the strictness of their anti-political claims (see libertarianism)."

Hmm. While anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism certainly derive from classical liberalism, neither one is identical to classical liberalism. Anarcho-capitalism, like political liberalism, is certainly an evolution (and deviation) from classical liberalism. Libertarianism is certainly closer to classical liberalism, but as we discuss in our articles on these two topics, the terms are not interchangeable. Since this is an article on liberalism -- a more mainstream concept than libertarianism, and far more mainstream than anarcho-capitalism, the views libertarians and anarcho-capitalists may have of central and eastern liberal parties seem to me a bit beside the point for this article and more relevant to the articles on libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, respectively. Again, though, if someone can rewrite in a way more obviously illustrative of the topic of liberalism -- which is, after all, the subject of this article -- I won't object.

This is the end of my current major edit. I'll try to largely refrain from further editing the article the next week or so to make sure others get a fair chance to influence its direction. -- Jmabel 06:37, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

My recent updatings

I moved the paragraphs on the usage in diverse countries to the articles Liberalism in . The old text can be found here

talk:liberalism/old version usage liberalism.

I redrafted the paragraph on political liberalism, trying to keep it a neutral text.
I replaced the paragraph on evolution of liberalism just before Political liberalism
I merged the paragraph on Classical liberalism, redrafted to this article and put it just after Evolution of liberalism. The old tekst can be found at talk:liberalism/classical.
I redrafted the introuctory paragraph on diverse usages. The old tekst can be found at talk:liberalism/old version usages.

Gangulf 17:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to gather that together again in Liberalism in countries. I think it is useful to see in one place how diverse the usages are, instead of having them only exist scattered around. -- Jmabel 17:02, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I still have to summarize paragraph 5.1, since it is now double with the larger text on Classical Liberalism. Gangulf 17:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but how is Immanuel Kant not a classical liberal?? He was practically a minarchist, and the last important philosopher of the enlightenment! --Lussmu 11:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe that Gangulf who wrote this passage is currently on vacation. You might want to leave a note on his talk page to get his attention when he returns. -- Jmabel 17:51, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

"Exporting revolution"

After a recent edit, the paragraph that begins, "With the Depression of the 1930's..." now ends, "In Soviet Russia, a government arose which imposed collectivism on agriculture and took state command of every aspect of the economy, and promised to 'export revolution'." The latter part of this seems quite wrong. Enforced collective farms are indeed a Stalinist program; exporting revolution really isn't. Stalin was (especially at this time) precisely the champion of "revolution in one country"; exporting revolution was far more the plan of Lenin and Trotsky. I'll leave this for a bit to give the author of the passage a shot at editing to indicate what (if anything) he/she actually meant, but if no one modifies this soon, I probably will. -- Jmabel 05:51, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

The graf is badly written, I didn't intend to imply that Stalin himself supported export of Revolution in the 1930's (though many in Russia did, as did the Trotskyites) Let me see if I can rewrite it. Stirling Newberry 09:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"classical liberalism" and "libertarianism"

I strenuously object to the claim that "classical liberalism" and "libertarianism" are one and the same. We've been through this all before, and I am not going to rehash the arguments. Normally, I would just revert this, User:Stirling Newberry has been making a bunch of edits, most of them good.

Stirling, I know you are following the "be bold" maxim, and much of what you are doing is good, but this is an article that has had a lot of work by a lot of people, and I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would really be helpful if somewhere you could summarize the changes you are making. It's pretty hard to tease them out, because you are moving things around, as well. -- Jmabel 21:15, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm also following wiki policy - the article as written is heavily POV, factually inaccurate and original work - in that it uses terms in ways which are particular to an ideology, or are not found anywhere else. Specifically: "political liberalism" does not mean in mainstream political philosophy anything remotely resembling what is used here. See Rawls Political Liberalism for the more common usage. In the top 1000 google citiations, and in amazon inside the book I could not find one citation of classical liberalism as used here which was not by a classical liberal. Instead, as the "liberalism" link uses it to mean "pre-welfare state liberalism", which includes a number of liberals who are not acceptable to "classical liberals".

If you have a citation of someone making a distinction between classical liberal and libertarianism by all means include it. However, this isn't how we feel about things, but about documenting how others use the term. I assert that, among non- "classical liberals" the term Libertarianism is the one used to describe the body of thought, and that this can be backed up by numerous cites from important works. My graf documented that liberatarianism is the term used by outsiders, and classical liberalism used by insiders, if there needs to be another clause along the lines of "within classical liberalism the term libertarian applies more specifically to..." but I could find no documentable and regular usage to cite. If you have one, by all means includie it.

If there is a controversy by all means document it - but to the broad majority of usage, "classical liberal" isn't a term at all, beyond meaning the long tradition of liberal writing, and not, as its adherents use it, a specific body of anti-communitarianism. Stirling Newberry 01:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No way is that going to fly. Sorry, but there were arguments about the differences between Classical Liberalism and "Libertarianism" in the massive amount of text you deleted (and then replaced with things from some other article.) You cite Google results as a good way to see how other people define things - Google suffers from two major problems when it comes to this.

None of which were documented in any source what-so-ever. Wiki is not a standards body that decides on what defintions are based on arguments. I delted undocumented, POV, original writing. Which is wikipolicy.

Firstly, Google searches the internet - the internet is overwhelmingly US-dominated and US-centric - and is overwhelmingly US-dominated and US-centric.

Which is why I supplemented it with a search of available online text.

Secondly, if our definition is correct then there would be hardly any classical Liberals (we're saying it's a historical ideology (a dead one)) and thus their views would not be widespread on the internet and could not easily be searched for.

This is wiki, we aren't supposed to have "our" definition. We are supposed to be documenting the definitions in use, highlighting those that readers will most likely encounter. The two definitions of the term which I found overwhelming preponderate I documented. To refute the division requires a body of writing which self-identifies as classical liberal which outsiders would not call libertarian. I'm waiting for a single citation which does this. The other refutation would be to show that classical liberal has been accepted by people who don't self-identify being the same as the use the classical liberals make of it. I have yet to find one such reference in an mainstream text, instead, the consistent usage in English is libertarian.

No, the consitant usage in American English is "libertarian". In British English the phrase "Classical liberal" refers to the group of liberal philosophers from John Locke to about JS Mill. Their views can be seen as distinct from the views of Libertarians as there are broad disagreements on many areas.

From the point of view of mainstream political ideology there are no living classical liberals, it is indeed "dead". From the point of view of a group of people who call themselves "classical liberals" it is a living political philosophy. It is this that I am documenting, namely that there are two basically separate usages of the term, which are both consistent and distinct. Since the school of thought exists, it publishes and has adherents, it should be documented.

This is not represented in the article. It only documents the view that classical Liberalism and Libertarianism is one and the same.

I don't see how any person can agree that (apart from a Marxist) that Classical Liberalism is essentially "the absolute primacy of private property, the non-interference of the state in economics, called laissez-faire." I mean not even Adam Smith believed that - as was discussed in the article. If that was true then why did Classical Liberal thinkers come up with ideas such as rights, toleration and democracy? They have noting to do with the primacy of private property.

According to the people who call themselves "classical liberals" in the present, that is exactly what they assert. Howevever, from the POV of mainstream political ideology, these contentions are absurd. There are a few terrabytes of flame war over the issue. My response is "document and move on".

Being wholly reliant on people who seek to profit from their claims is not quite the Wiki NPOV policy.

I also fail to see how Libertarianism is anywhere nearer to Classical Liberalism then neo-Liberalism. The main linking point between the ideologies is the economics (dependant upon a slightly skewed look at the Classical Liberal view on economics.) Why then is Libertarianism given full hold over the phrase?

There are many who would argue that Libertarianism isn't classical liberalism at all. In fact, I would be one of them. However, I will again note that "classical liberal" is what they call themselves and the article as written documents that this usage is not agreed to by those outside of the self-identifying group.

I've also got to say

"In the top 1000 google citiations, and in amazon inside the book I could not find one citation of classical liberalism as used here which was not by a classical liberal. Instead, as the "liberalism" link uses it to mean "pre-welfare state liberalism", which includes a number of liberals who are not acceptable to "classical liberals"."

is plain stupid. If we are arguing over the definition of classical liberalism then we are arguing over who can be counted as a classical liberal.

I'm not arguing, I'm documenting that other people are arguing over it. We shouldn't be arguing over who is and who is not a classical liberal, we should be documenting "group X says that the definition of classical liberal is Y and therefore Z is the list of classical liberals, while group A says that the defintion of classical liberal is B and therefore C is the list of classical liberals". Now if the text I've produced doesn't do this clearly, I'm all in favor of making changes. But, from the documentation, I don't think it is possible to say that there isn't an argument or that the argument isn't sufficiently important to document. Whether the argument is reasonable, sensible, etc etc etc is something that others will have to judge.

You are not documenting it. You have written "Libertarianism or "Classical Liberalism"". Not Classical Liberalism and then maybe a subsection "Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism" - where you can actually document the argument.

Specificallly the text says that "classical liberal" is generally applied to "pre-welfare state" liberalism, and that there is a self-identifying group of people who call themselves "classical liberals" who are generally identified by others as "libertarians". There's some dispute about whether the word "libertarian" (English Usage) is the right word, but I feel I have the documentary evidence from important sources (such as Milton Friedman and others) which shows that Libertarian identifies what the outside, when it is being polite, calls the group of self-identifying "classical liberals"

Stirling Newberry 22:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think a revert is in order on the last change. Slizor 12:00, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

I don't think you have grounds for that. Stirling Newberry 22:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you had grounds for a change in the first place Slizor 21:25, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry seems to suffer from acute americano-centrism. You will find that only in the US are Liberals socialists. Of course looking for confirmation on US websites will confirm this.

Joy, unsubstantiated anonymous personal attacks without citations. Stirling Newberry 20:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We're still waiting for your citations... It may be hard to believe for you, but on most of the planet, no one has heard of the american definition, just like you seem to ignore the other defintion. Sorry but, coming from a country where the american definition is completely unheard of, you just seem like an ignorant waste of time. You will have to do the research yourself, just lookup any French/Spanish/German dictionary for liberal. [Just looked at the French version of this page, it's the "rest of the world" definition. - Why don't you take a look at it? Use an automatic translator if need be]

Undocumented, unsigned personal attacks from an IP address do not warrant any further responses on my part. Stirling Newberry 21:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Undocumented modifications of articles should be removed from this site. Stirling's changes should be removed. These were not attacks by the way, simply objective facts. Sad that Stirling is so close minded, there are still many things for all of us to learn.

If you want to start an edit war, go right ahead. Stirling Newberry 23:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From a Continental European point of view, the "Classical Liberals" and Libertarian are two different things. "Classical Liberals" are called "Liberals," plain and simple. "Classical" is only added to distinguish them from the "US Liberals" and "neo-liberals." The difference with Libertarism lies mainly in the role of the state, which is far from negligible in "rest of the world" liberalism. If you are looking for "Classical Liberals", then look for Liberalism (or liberalisme). The term "classical liberal" is only used to avoid confusions that stem from US cultural dominance. New Guy 20:36, 19 Aug 2004 (GMT)

Sweeping edits

Stirling, from what I can tell, you've made some rather sweeping edits. It's hard to work out exactly what you've changed, because you've moved a lot around. It looks to me like you've cut some material, and not followed the common policy of moving the cut material to the talk page to highlight what has been removed.

Could you try at least to provide us with a summary of any cuts you have made? -- Jmabel 05:00, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

No. Stirling Newberry 05:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How do we make everyone happy?

This page doesn't seem to be talking about liberalism, as I understand it, but I realise a lot of these political terms can be vague and can have different meanings to different people.

My understanding of liberalism is that it is, in essence, an idelogy based on the idea that the goal of government is to maximise the freedom of the people. There seem to be two related but distinct areas where the water gets muddied:

Liberalism has led people to different conclusions. In this case freedom is the core value, but it gets interpretted in different ways. The notions of "positive freedoms" fits in this category. If you believe that everyone should have the freedom that education brings, you are expressing a liberal ideology, because it is based on the principle of freedom. Other liberals may disagree that education makes you free, or may disagree that you are entitled to that freedom. Perhaps they don't approve of the constraint your freedom has on their freedom not to be taxed. These are issues about how to interpret liberalism. The idea that liberalism is about freedom is shared as a root for all these ideologies.
The term liberalism has been adopted to describe social democratic ideologies, particularly in the United States. These ideologies focus on socialist principles, like community responsibility and state ownership. The core value is not "freedom" in these ideologies, and so for me they do not fit under the term "liberalism".

In other words, it seems to me that liberalism can mean (strictly) "based on freedom" or (US usage) "generally left-wing". I think both of these meanings deserves its own page. A lot can be written about how different idelogies have interpreted the core liberal value of freedom. Similarly, there's plenty to discuss about how left-wing ideologies evolve.

The current page seems to present the US usage, and presents it as if it were the evolution of some kind of cohesive ideology. I've read someone say that the US left wing claimed the term liberal in order to avoid the term "socalism" when that became politicaly unpopular. In other words they used the term for something related but different. This isn't an evolution of ideology, it's an evolution of language.

I think we need two pages, the question I have is what names can we give them to make everyone happy?

To get the ball rolling I suggest:

liberalism [for discussion of ideologies that hold freedom as their central principle]
liberalism (US usage) [for discussion of US left-wing ideologies with a more diverse set of principles]

I think some authors have been using the term "modern liberalism" to refer to the US usage, as if the stricter use of the term is out-dated. Don't get me started on that!

I want to stress that I'm not arguing for a particular ideology, or to say that a particular interpretation of liberalism (meaning freedom-ism) is right or wrong. What I'm arguing is that there are two distinct uses of the word liberalism. These need to be disambiguated, so we need two articles. What should we call them? Ben Arnold 04:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't have time to go into this now in detail, but I think that both traditions have clear continuity of development from the same classical liberal philosophers. We have articles that cover more specific political philosophies within the liberal tradition (e.g. libertarianism or more specific national developments of liberalism. We could use more of these. This one is the broad article. Like the article on socialism or conservatism, it embraces many often contradictory currents within a stream. Somewhere in the encyclopedia we need an article for each of these broad streams that does that. This is the one for liberalism. Liberalism has more or less a single current down to about 1848, but after that it divides. If you try to say that social democratic elements have no part in liberalism, you end up in the position of having to say that John Stuart Mill wasn't really a liberal. -- Jmabel 19:58, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Modern or social liberalism is more than liberalism us usage. Much of European liberalism is influenced by social thinking and the welfare state was also a liberal invention (Beveridge, Keynes, Bertil Ohlin).

This page gives a broad overview of liberalism, so I certainly would not prefer a separation. earlier versions were more clear on that overview. Typical national discussions on liberalism could be discussed on pages like Liberalism in the United States (this page exists allready). Thatcher and Reagan are by the way no liberals, not even in an European sense. They might adhere to some liberal market ideas, but liberalism is more than market. Gangulf 16:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) (sorry, first placed it in the wrong place. I do agree with Jmabel)

This page as evolved in a clear pro-progressive liberalism pov. Referring to progressive liberalism as "modern" or - worse - "evolved" in an insult to so-called "classical" liberals, who were forced to adopt this terminology following the evolution of the word "liberalism" in the USA. "classical" liberalism far from disapearing, contrary to what is suggested by the tone and wording ofthe article. To the contrary, all political parties are moving in it's direction, and it has been the governing force between all international agreenents for the last 50 years. From a practical pov, however, it seems inevitable that more US liberal will work on this page, due to the origin of wikipedia and the language of the entry. Hence the inevitable bias. It could therefore be useful to separate the entries, one would be "progressive" liberal play ground, while the other would be a "classical" liberal sandbox. Starting by opposing "conservatism" and "liberalism" is another example of this bias. Gandulf, Thatcher and Reagan embody European liberalism. Especially Thatcher. I have to support Ben Arnold entirely. I do fear, however, that US-liberals (who will naturally me a majority here) will lack the brad mindness to grant room space to an ideology oposed to theirs. Hence the need for two distinct playgrounds.

Let's be clear, I am an European, not an American liberal, member of a party situated in the centre of the political spectrum in my country, a party srongly in favour of free market, but at te same time emphasizing the need of hindering monopolies and cartels and the need for social policy. Thatcher was the leader of the British Conservative party and was never involved in liberal politics. Most European liberals wouldn't consider her to be a liberal, neither would they consider Reagan a liberal in the European sense of the word. It is a misunderstanding that libertarians in the US are like European liberals. This would disregard decades of development in European liberalism (with a possible exception for France, where the world liberal became synomym with minarchism. There is a place for a separate libertarian playground at libertarianism. Liberalism and conservatism have always been different ideologies in Europe as are liberalism and social democracy.

If the term Evolved liberalism bothers you, i do not mind to replace it with modern liberalism, as it was used before, i would mind using the word social liberal, since only a part of modern liberalism would consider itself social liberal. --Gangulf 14:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BTW, there is also a separate page for United States liberalism, which could be used for a discussion/playground on American liberalism. --Gangulf 14:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think "evolved" liberalism is a poor choice of words, and we should lose it. I myself tend to write (in other contexts) "liberalism (in the U.S. sense)"; I've also seen "American liberalism" or "U.S. liberalism" but that ignores its influence in the UK and (to a lesser extent) Continental Europe. "Cold War liberalism" now seems archaic. "New Deal liberalism" seems, again, too U.S.-centric. As an American I have no problem with "modern liberalism".

Yes, it is an interesting matter that classical liberalism and classical conservatism have somewhat converged, given their different philosophical roots. In the U.S., to the best of my knowledge, most people in this convergence call themsleves "conservative", not "liberal". One of the few such mainstream U.S. politicians I know who ever tries to reclaim the word "liberal" is Jack Kemp. Are there other examples in the English-speaking world? There is no question that the word connotes differently in French or Spanish, and we mention that, but this is, ultimately, the English-language Wikipedia, and the fact that words likethis don't map perfectly across languages should be mentioned (as it is), but should not be central to the article. -- Jmabel 21:17, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I will change Evolved liberalism into modern liberalism, but what that I do not mean US Liberalism, but I think what is now mainstream liberalism in Europe and outside. --Gangulf 21:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gandulf, you are from the Netherlands, aren't you? I understand that their definition is at a cross-road between the US and Euro version. It fits yours, but is not representative of, for instance, the French or Spanish meanings. It would be pointless to argue where Thatcher or Reagan would fit, that reminds me of those endless and pointless discussions to classify music bands...

My user name is Gangulf, not Gandulf. I don't know whose comment this is, since it anonimous. European liberalism is pluriform, but I am active in international liberal politics. I have had contact with liberal politicans from many European countries (and Canada). Dutch liberalism doesn't differ form European liberalism, but both currents inside liberalism are present in NL. None of them is libertarian. Even what we might call conservative liberals in the NL accept state intervention on a lot of issues. Minarchism doesn't exits there. But this is the same in countries like Britain, Luxembourg, Scandinavian countries etc. Though most US liberals would be considered left-wingers and European liberal would be considered more to the right wing, I really doubt if American liberalism is more to the left than European liberalism. May be the whole American spectrum is more to right wing. I am always amazed that even left-wing Americans can support capital punishment. Really, if liberalism is only about economics, one mght consider Reagan and Thatcher as liberals, but liberalism is not only about economics, it is about individula self-determination. Historically conservatism and liberalism are antipodes, that is not typical American. So, I wouldn't mind labelling Thatcher and Reagan neo-liberals, but they don't fit in the liberal tradition. --Gangulf 20:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Citations, please

"...although some would consider this a misinterpretation of Hayek or of what constitutes liberalism." (italics mine)

This is nothing but POV disguised by a weasel word. I'm sure it's not the only case of this in the article -- probably not even in the paragraph; I only noticed it because it's new. It's a reasonable opinion, and I'm not inclined to delete it, but can't people do a little legwork and find relevant citations for someone other than themselves holding such an opinion? -- Jmabel 22:47, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Revision

I made an attempt to make it less US and shorter, still don't know what to do with the paragraph 'Modern liberalism in practice'. It seems to overlap the other paragraphs. An discussion on US liberalism can take part in the article Liberalism in the United States. -- Gangulf 18:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

American liberalism

BTW, as an European liberal democrat I sometimes doubt if American liberalism is really left wing. I think many Europeans would consider the Democrat presidential candidate not to be left-wing. As far as I know he isn't against the death penalty. In European liberalism there is a general consensus that the death penalty is not liberal at all. -- Gangulf 18:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The following quote, from the fifth paragraph of the "Classical Liberalism" section:

American thinkers were also heavily influenced by liberal ideas. Both the third and fourth Presidents of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and James Madison (1751-1836), put the Liberal movement's ideas into practice. Not only did they set up a liberal democracy, they also furthered liberal ideology's influence on the American system of government ...

They did not set up "a liberal democracy"; quite the contrary, they were (quite rightly) opposed to democracy, and would turn over in their graves at the modern American idea of "liberal"! They set up "a republic, if you can keep it" (and you kept it for about 60 years)

A republic is a state with a non-hereditary head of state. You can have a democratic republic - the terms are not mutually exclusive (infact they go well together - unlike a capitalist democracy.)

Slizor 13:35, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Free-Speech and Capitalism

Why is Free-Speech and Capitalism under Liberalism, while Conservatism claims to be the opposite of this? Conservatism is much more into Free-Speech (further right and you get Libertarianism) and Capitalism than Liberalism. (anonymous question 29 Sep 04, moved from where it was interspersed above)

I'm not sure what in the article you are referring to. The word "capitalism" doesn't even appear in the article. As for free speech, it was a concept central to 19th-century liberalism and remains central to the conception of liberal democracy today. While there are some self-described liberals who may want to limit certain speech they find politically offensive (see political correctness), they are a small minority: the usual contemporary liberal view on this is that the cure for the ills of free speech is more free speech.

As for "Conservatism claims to be the opposite of this", I literally have no idea what you are referring to.

Libertarians are, like modern-day liberals, heirs to the 19th-century liberal tradition (the article discusses this). I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "further right and you get Libertarianism", but, indeed a case could be made that Libertarians are, precisely, right-wing liberals. Conservatism doesn't enter into that matter at all. Libertarians embrace the rationalism that is associated with liberalism, not the traditionalism that is part of the underlying definition of conservatism.

Hope that helps answer your question. I suggest you read this article and conservatism and they may help make this all clearer. -- Jmabel 04:56, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Disputed

I also think, this page is too strongly from an US point of view, i.e. too strongly influenced by the historically and philosophically wrong use of the term "liberal" in US-Politics. What is written under "'Modern' liberalism in practice" tries somehow to reconcile this US-only meaning of the term with the historical, philosophical and rest-of-the-world meaning of "liberal". This does not work. There should be an section "meaning in US-politics" which clearly states that in this context the term is simply used as an synonym for "left-wing". 195.212.29.179 14:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The person who made the previous comment also added the "disputed" tag to the article. Question: can an anonymous person raise a dispute? I happen to think that this person is simply wrong:

At most this is an NPOV issue. There is no statement in the previous paragraph indicating that there is anything factually wrong with the article.
As has been much discussed, the historical shift in the meaning of the word of "liberalism" is not exclusively American, although that is where it has been most dramatic. It begins as early as John Stuart Mill. Similar changes have come about in the meaning of the word in the UK and to a lesser extent in Germany and Scandinavia; I suspect this is true in several other countries as well, but someone else will have to follow that up.
Perhaps we should use a different term than "modern liberalism", since several people seem to find it confusing. In an earlier version of one of the articles that has been merged into the present article, I used "liberalism in the U.S. sense", but I believe that was changed precisely because one or more Europeans said, in effect, "no, it increasingly has that meaning here, too."
Besides all that, liberal in the U.S. is not a "synonym for 'left-wing'". Its hard to imagine any person arguing that (say) U.S. Trotskyists are "liberals", or that the SDS was a "liberal" organization. "Liberal" in the U.S. refers mainly to a certain swath of left-of-center politics, but not to the entire left.

I'm open to suggestions on how we should handle this, but unless the anonymous User:195.212.29.179 makes himself/herself known by an account name and/or indicates a disputed fact, I'm inclined at least to downgrade this to an NPOV dispute. Other thoughts? -- Jmabel 18:34, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Reaction to criticism

In an attempt to comly with the criticism I revised the article, making it shorter, less US centric. --Gangulf 19:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At a quick read, it is now rather the opposite of US-centric, which is to say that it seems almost to ignore the U.S. It will probably be a bit of time until I can read it closely, but Gangulf, usually when making massive cuts to an article lots of people have worked on, one moves the cut material either to the talk page or to a separate page linked from the talk page. Did you do this and I just don'e see where? It's really hard for me to sort out what was removed rather than just lightly edited. I don't think much of it was unencyclopedic, so I suspect a lot of it should be redistributed to other articles. But maybe not. Hard to tell when there is no easy way to look at it. -- Jmabel 19:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)